W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: [dialog] Guillaume #4 - VBWG official response to VoiceXML 2.0 Last Call Review Issues

From: Guillaume Berche <guillaume.berche@eloquant.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:15:43 +0200
To: "Scott McGlashan" <scott.mcglashan@pipebeach.com>, "w3c voice (E-mail)" <www-voice@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ELEGLIHGLLIBFPCIGAKGGEEJDAAA.guillaume.berche@eloquant.com>

Scott,

Thanks for your answer and for processing my comments outside of the
official comment period.

> Please indicate before 1st November 2002 whether you are satisfied with
> the VBWG's resolutions, whether you think there has been a
> misunderstanding, or whether you wish to register an objection.

I am satisfied with the VBWG's resolutions, except for point 6 for which I
wish to add the following comment.


> 6) Precise that a <field> item without implicit nor explicit grammar
> should
> throw an error.semantic event.
> See if it is possible to refine the schema to enforce this.
> Alternative suggested text modification to the end of section "2.3.1
> FIELD"
> "[...] The use of <option> does not preclude the simultaneous use of
> <grammar>. The result would be the match from either 'grammar', not
> unlike
> the occurence of two <grammar> elements in the same <field> representing
> a
> disjunction of choices. However, a field item without implicit nor
> explicit
> grammar would result in an error.semantic event to be thrown at document
> initialization time".
>
>
> VBWG Response: Rejected.
>
> The specification doesn't state or imply that a field without grammars
> is an error, so we cannot make it more precise.
>

Section "2.3.1 FIELD" defines a field as "A field specifies an input item to
be gathered from the user. "
I don't see how input may be gathered from the user if no grammar is
associated with the field.

My suggestion was therefore that it would probably not make sense from a
VXML author to define a field without a grammar. Rather this condition would
appear as a result of an authoring error. I believe it would help authors
detect such VXML mistakes to throw an error.semantic event instead of simply
letting the interpreter throw a nomatch/noinput event. In general I believe
it is easier to debug upfront errors in a VXML application rather than at
runtime.

Best regards,

Guillaume Berche.
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2002 09:15:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:48:56 GMT